The World of European Information Philippe Aldrin To cite this version: Philippe Aldrin. The World of European Information: An Institutional and Relational Genesis of the EU Public Sphere. Palgrave MacMillan. The Field of eurocracy. Mapping the EU Staff and pro- fessionals, Palgrave, pp.72-98, 2013, ”European Administrative Governance” Series, 978-1137294692. halshs-00859413v3 HAL Id: halshs-00859413 https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00859413v3 Submitted on 24 Nov 2013 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Philippe ALDRIN, “The World of European Information. An institutional and relational genesis of the EU public sphere” Chapter 5 from the book : GEORGAKAKIS Didier and ROWELL Jay, eds., The Field of Eurocracy. Mapping the EU Staff and Professionals, London, Palgrave Macmillan (“European Administrative Governance” Series), 2013 THE WORLD OF EUROPEAN INFORMATION AN INSTITUTIONAL AND RELATIONAL GENESIS OF THE EU PUBLIC SPHERE Philippe ALDRIN* either the EU communication policy nor the criticism it is subject to are new. Born with the integration process itself, the N question of Community communication can be traced back to the 1950s, when the High Authority sought to develop the ‘public relations’ of the ECSC (European Coal and Steel Community)1. A first report by the European Parliament devoted to the ‘information problem’ of the European community project was published in the 1950s (Carboni, 1957). Although this question was from the inception an important issue in inter-institutional debates (the Parliamentary Assembly adopted resolutions on the information-communication policy in 1960, 1962, 1972 and 1986), it was only from the 1980s onwards that information-communication policy became the subject of recurrent controversy, particularly around the themes relative to the excessive power of the Commission and the ‘democratic deficit’ of Europe – until then synonymous with parliamentary impotence (*) Professor at Sciences Po Aix / CHERPA. 1 In 1955, the High Authority commissioned Brose and Elvinger, a professional agency, to produce a report on the development of ‘public relations’ (Brose, Elvinger, 1955). 1 (Marquand, 1979). Sporadically, crisis after crisis, and controversy after controversy, the paradigms on which the conceptual frameworks of European Communication were based shifted. First of all, the ‘challenges’ facing European leaders in terms of opinion and the media were not the same in 1952 as they were in 1992 or today. From the end of the 1990s onwards, the diffusionist approach to communication that prevailed in the first decades of the European project, based on a pedagogy instrumentalizing ‘opinion makers’ as relays of information (Aldrin, 2009), progressively lost ground to a more procedural conception on the one hand where communication, integrated upstream of policy formulation, mobilized dialogue and on deliberative democracy mechanisms on the other hand seeking to give substance to the ‘governance’ framework (Georgakakis, De Lassalle, 2007a)2. But how can one better understand, beyond this paradigmatic shift, the concrete functioning of and transformations in European communication? On this question, the academic literature contains a peculiar bias. Most authors start from the end of the process and focus on the effects of the EU's communication policy and, ultimately, on its supposed inefficiency, in order to identify the causes. Attempting to diagnose Europe's inability to address the communication ‘challenge’, observers tend to focus on identifying the ‘strategic errors’ that could explain its ‘failure’ (Dacheux, 2004). Though the inventory of arguments characterizing the successive controversies in the history of EU communication policy probably predisposes to such an interpretation, a more structural approach can help shed some light on the institutionally and sociologically roots of the ‘problem’3. To do so, one must first take into account the transformations resulting from the successive political changes in the European community. With the direct elections of MEPs4, citizen behaviour and opinions – measured with regular opinion polls (Eurobarometer) – have 2 We must put this evolution in perspective and highlight the permanence, in EU institutions, of the diffusionist paradigm, through the continued existence of the four hundred ‘Europe Direct’ centers housed by the various partners (universities, local authorities, chambers of commerce). 3 In a sense close to the program defined by F. Bailey: ‘We are looking for a level of knowledge of the game which those that play it might not have. It is that which the anthropologist or the Political science specialist seeks to reach. Until s/he gets there, all s/he does is describe what the players themselves know and s/he has not begun to carry out his/her own analysis.’ (Bailey, 1971, p.22). 4 With, in particular, the 1976 reform introducing the election of MEPs by direct universal suffrage and the use of referendums for ratifying new treaties. 2 progressively become the main indicator of the EU's political legitimacy. Since the principles of legitimization of political Europe became aligned with those of any other ‘public democracy’5, each ‘crisis’ (low voter turnout, negative referendum) has had a magnifying effect on the EU's ‘communication strategy’, giving critics the opportunity to express themselves (Kingdon, 1984). But here too, discourses account only imperfectly for the reality of the situations and practices, and even more so for the changes in this reality. Against the impression generated by the steady stream of accusations made by active Eurosceptics, who qualify the EU communication as structurally dysfunctional6, the information-communication mechanism has undergone successive adjustments and experienced objective successes such as the constitution of a substantial press corps in Brussels. As early as Delors' first mandate, ‘information policy’ was officially renamed ‘European communication’. The completion of the Single Market and the new Treaty provisions - including EU citizenship and the second ‘pillar’ has partly eroded the States resistance to Brussels attempts to communicate its ‘propaganda’ directly to citizens (Foret, 2008, p.63). Thus, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the EU's information and communication policy asserted itself more openly as a program for the integration of national opinions, even though, as we shall see, this objective had been conceptualized and operationalized much earlier. But it is the ‘nature’, scope and horizon of Europe itself that have changed. It is now not only possible but accepted to use proactive rhetoric on strategic communication to serve the European project. The Maastricht moment, marked by voters' unexpected timidity and the recommendations provided in the de Clercq report7 accelerated the 5 In this third age of democracy, described by Bernard Manin as dominated by the mass media, the personalization of politics and opinion polls, ‘a new elite of communication specialists is replacing political activists and apparatchiks’. (Manin, 1995, p.279) 6 Adopted by MEPs in 1986, at the threshold of a new political age galvanized by the prospect of a Single European Market, the Baget-Bozzo report demanded a ‘true European communication policy’ using, without limits, all available means and media (European Parliament, 1986). 7 Facing new criticisms formulated or relayed by the media following the difficult ratification of the Maastricht Treaty, the Commission appointed a group of experts comprising eighty professionals from different fields in 1992 (journalists, academics, artists, advertisers, national and European civil servants). Under the chairmanship of the Belgian MEP Willy de Clercq, the group was given a triple mission: ‘Compile a descriptive review of the information and communication policies’; ‘provide a diagnosis on the quality of the mechanisms, actions, behaviors and means’ and ‘formulate strategic recommendations’ (Clercq, 1993). 3 transformation of the communication apparatus as well as the public justification of this transformation. Commercial communication techniques were used in the ‘information effort’. Marketing principles and terminology, as well as the figurative fictions of the general public (the ‘European citizen’, ‘European Youth’) became part of the discursive and action repertoires of the Commission (Tumber, 1995). For a long time considered as an artificial institutional posture aimed at making EU action more natural and attractive in the eyes of citizens of the Member States (Memmi, 1991), communication was no longer limited to providing information on Europe. It was embraced as a key instrument for political legitimization. From the 1980s onward, the EU agents most interested in the integration process (Commissioners, Spokespeople, DG X agents) and soon after, other European public affairs professionals (international journalists, members of think tanks, lobbyists, communication consultants) started investing themselves more openly into conquering ‘European